--- In [email protected], Michael Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I finally got to read this again... I find it extremely > interesting... I'd love it if you guys Enric and ANdreas sited > sources... You're dealing in some interesting and heady terminologies > and ideas... I realize you don't pull them from blogs or the web... > in fact I assume you've been reading some books I haven't but.. if > you can site things... like where is this "cube model" you talk about > enric...
Andreas wrote on the "cube model", http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/30658 ;) > and can you further expand on this list of terms... I > follow... but I'm not quite seeing how they all fit together. Most of what I write is from my current understanding and knowledge (synthesized). So the best reference is probably my background: film theory from U.C. Berkeley (B.A. in Film Studies); studying psychology (Freudian and cognitive); working on independent film production from then to the present; software programmer on communication and collaborative software (Java, C++, VB mainly); and independently study of philosophy (Plato, some Heidegger, Nietzsche, Rand and Aristotle.) > > More notes mixed in below. > > > On Dec 25, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Enric wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:17:13 +0100, Mike Meiser > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 12/24/05, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think Tivo is Television. Classical television cannot > >>>> not be > >>>> automaticaly stored, retrieved, scanned and viewed out of order > >>>> (this > >>>> can be manually performmed with programming recorders -- but just > >>>> about anything can be put into a manual process.) So I think > >>>> this is > >>>> an intermediate medium to Blogging. I'd call it a Tivo medium with > >>>> the iPod containing similar capacity. It lacks the full two way > >>>> interaction of Blogs, but contains the automatic storage, > > scanning and > >>>> retrieval capability. > > I'd have to agree... i'd say the Tivo is a very well structured, very > limited scope system... that just happens to have some similar > feature of video blogging. It basically piggy backs on a tremendous > media system and does some very similar basic functions to what we're > doing with video blogging... such as allowing your to subscribe to > certain types of content... queue individual pieces of content... and > then rearrange and watch these pieces of media as you see fit. Video > blogging does this on an infinitely more complex and flexible level. > The systems it rest upon is primarily RSS but because it has few > boundaries it very much interacts with the net at large... seamlessly > weaving in content from outside of the vlogosphere and also in turn > it's media is flowing out of video blogging onto other regular blogs > and the web at large. Of course as you say Tivo also lacks the full > two way interaction. > > >> > >> In this case you can look at three kinds of interactivity. > >> > >> - Transmission. Viewer selects from preprogrammed flow of content. > > The > >> way tv works. Not really much interactivity, but hey. > >> - Consultation. Viewer selects from a pool of content. Video > > on-demand, > >> Tivo, iPod. Web reading works by consultation also, but it's > >> different > >> from video on-demand (see below). > >> - Conversation. Viewer can add content to the pool of content > > (affecting > >> the viewing situation for others). Integrated on blogs. Not > >> present in > >> video on-demand. > > This is where you lost me... I understand the the ideas and terms > your proposing... but I get the sense that I'm missing so much of a > larger model that I can't quite figure out how these all fit together > to form a larger system... This prior and following (cube model) are Andreas' response to my post on the Tivo intermediary to classical TV and (video)blogs. > > >> That's a simplified view on interactivity. In reality I subscribe > >> to a > >> variation where there is a fourth type (registration) and they're > > ordered > >> in a cube with a total of 12 different types. But this is enough for > > my > >> point here. No, I didn't think up the cube model, but I wish I did. > > Please do tell more. > > >> Blogs and video on-demand are both forms of consultative > > interactivity. > >> There is a pool of content and the reader picks which ones to watch > > and in > >> which order to read them. But they are different nevertheless. In > > video > >> on-demand situations the individual pieces are not seen as being > > part of a > >> whole. They are individual blocks - you pick something to watch, you > > watch > >> it and then you pick something else to watch (or you create a > >> playlist > >> ahead of time). The typical situation is an iPod or a DVD (menu: > > movie & > >> extra material). > > It's a simple issue of granularity... text is infinitely more > granular than video. > > >> On the blog the pieces are a part of a network. The pieces don't > > live on > >> their own, but largely in their connections with other pieces. You > >> can > >> read a piece and go further into the network by following > > connections from > >> that piece to the next creating your own little 'path' through the > >> blogosphere. This is less apparent in videoblogs than in blogs partly > >> because links in video are harder to do, partly because videobloggers > >> don't link as much (they are linking a whole lot more than they used > > to!). > >> It is a very different reading situation, and the meaning created if > > very > >> different from that of the video on-demand system. My response to Andreas' comment on linking in videoblogs is that it is so difficult to do (it requires hacking and programming expertise) that it's unknown how much people would link if they could easily. > > Once again granularity... the bigger the piece of content the more > they stand on their own... the less they can be broken down the less > contextualized they get... With text you can literally see the > network of quotes, references, and links... the network is so > granular you can actually see it... with video sometimes you just > find yourself watching the video and you may forget completely about > the context.... say the textual post... say that it's a part of a > blog or is a video that references another vlog... but those bonds > are STILL there and they're EXTREMELY STRONG... stronger in fact than > links... Examples of such are... > > 1) you're watching the 30th episode of the Steve Garfield show... you > may not realize it but the context of those 30 prior shows you've > seen create tremendous bonds between ideas and content in the current > show or the last... it could be ideas... visual queues... say you see > a chair you've seen before... a room... a peace of clothing worn > before... a house down the street... of course their is steve... his > distinctive voice... all sorts of audible clues too... these all > build extremely strong links in your mind... though most are not at > all computer readable or searchable. I would even say that these > purely mental links can be MUCH, MUCH stronger than the actual hyper > textual links or mental links we make from reading blogs... they can > much more compelling too and can even compel us to action easier than > a blog post. This is interesting, since Adrian Miles draws a parallel between film/video editing and hyperlinking. We discussed this on the "War on Text" thread: http://groups.google.com/group/videoblogging/msg/66513e90366def16 I disagree with drawing an exact cognitive equivalence, but the discussion was tabled. > > 2) Just to pick on Steve today... let's say you're watching vlog > soup... Steve gives you seven vlogs... spells out the urls... shows > them on screen... shows some clips, gives the whole rigamarole. > These links don't have to be clickable to be effective... now ideally > they're right there below the video as you watch it in the page... > but they can also create a much more compelling call to action than a > link... hence my case of watching videos on TV with a laptop in > hand... i find it actually less cumbersome than watching the video on > my computer... because it's not in the way... therefore I can in a > split second type in a url for a vlog he's talking about and follow > along... there's a sort of separation and breaking of the actual > direct hypertext links... but that does not mean that the feedback > systems or reciprocation is broken... I think we'll find as these > systems we're building become more ubiquitous we'll find many more > "leaps" of this sort... back and forth between devices... from the > mind to paper... to the computer to the mind... you must not discount > out these links though they're not hypertext... I think we may find > them more and more relevant as media becomes more ubiquitous. That's an interesting presentation on how people can select how to synchronize devices and technologies. Though I think most people will follow devices that automatically synchronize (when they become available) and not bother figuring out and manually connect different interfaces and locations on different devices. This is not because people are necessarily less curious or inventive. But they have different priorities. They want to be with their grandchildren, write novels, sell real estate. Their focus is not on how new technology can be manually put together for synchronization. > > There's a certain beautiful interaction between the speed of > interactivity between these different form of media... I'm VERY fond > of watching TV while working on my computer... especially things like > movies... even if I've seen them before... What I'm experimenting > with in watching vlogs on TV is to create a "space" a physical space > for a different form of interaction with them... as you say the > 'potential' for all the interaction is still there... BUT I'm also > free to ignore them... or to give them a much less significant part > of my attention and by having them more passive I can work more > productively on other things when they don't require my > interaction... and then immediately delve into them with increase > vigor when something does interest me... SO... watching vlogs > becomes more passive aggressive... So... watching vlogs is not a ALL > MY ATTENTION THING... so the attention I'm leveraging into watching > vlogs is not ALL my attention... so instead of watching vlogs for > one hour and feeling either fulfilled or perhaps not so fulfilled > after watching vlogs for an hour... I can now watch vlogs for two > hours or more while I'm working... sometimes stopping... sometimes re- > watching what I really like... but ultimately getting more enjoyment > out of the vlogs and more time to work on other things during that > same three hour period. Hell... I'm watching vlogs right now as I'm > writing this to you. > > > >> Add the fact that conversational interactivity is integrated into the > >> blogs and the whole thing blows up in your face. Now you are a > > participant > >> on equal terms with anyone else. You can recontexualise any other > > piece by > >> creating your own piece and making a connection between the two. > > I hear that... it's an amazing thing that the vlog watcher has as > much power as the vlog creator... it's a scary scary thing indeed for > those not born or this medium. It's also one of the most amazing > things about this medium... I think perhaps the core catalyst to > spurning conversation. I know in commenting or revlogging I wield the > same power as the original creator... and hence... I'm very tempted > to do it... and hence... I'm very thankful and have much empathy for > them. It's the beautiful thing that also exists in blogging... but is > much more powerful in video blogging... which is why I think comments > and rev-logs have a tendency to be much more positive or affirming of > the original vlogger. Not that we're all a bunch of back patters and > there is some good true disagreement now and again.. but the empathy > does offset the power. We are early adopters and still a relatively small community. This also existed when the internet was mostly connections between universities and research orgs. Once the internet opened up and became interesting to everyone, it's nature and variety of good and bad changed. The same is true in blogging where a polarization exists between liberal and conservative bloggers. And the nature of videoblogging will change once it becomes popular. > > Side note: Ironically you should see some of the seething hate mail I > write to the occasional website I come across with streaming media > which instead of empowering me actually often robs my times and craps > all over me... and is usually accompanies with no or completely > ineffective feedback mechanism... the hate is redoubled. :) The last > time I think I bothered to try and watch a streaming video was on > CBS's website when the whole Mena Trott argument was traveling around > the vlogosphere about 3-4 weeks ago. They'd fudged the interface so > bad to try and control it and "hold onto their power" that after 20 > minutes of screwing around with it in Safari and Firefox and diving > into the source I still couldn't get it to play.. never did watch > it... but I sent them a nice piece of clue mail. :) LOL. > I think we can pretty much apply the technical term sucks to streaming media. ;) > > >> And then Michael describes his own setup: > >> > >>> Actually... I've found that playing back video blogs on the TV > > can be > >>> quite > >>> the two way experience. Now, I'm using my iPod, BUT I suppose a Tivo > >>> might > >>> work just as well. What makes it work is having a parrellel > >>> queue... a > >>> landing page where by you can follow along as you wish. Also a > > remote for > >>> your ipod or tivo comes in handy, of course for skipping, pausing, > >>> restarting or rewinding. Here's an example workflow we set up with > >>> mefeedia... First mefeedia automatically creates for you a web based > >>> browseable queue as it has from the start... but now it also > > provides for > >>> you a single personal RSS feed that directly parrallels that > > queue. The > >>> RSS > >>> feed hence goes to your Fireant, iTunes/ipod or perhaps in the > > future > >>> tivo > >>> or Akimbo as they start to better support vlogs... Basically you can > >>> instantly pull up your watch page on your laptop and jump to any > > post > >>> your > >>> watching on TV. > >> [SNIP a bunch - you know how it is, Michael :o)] > >> > >> What you're describing here is not a video podcasting system (not > > how I > >> describe video podcasting above). It behaves more like a blog-system > > than > >> a video on-demand system. Like setting up a second monitor on your > >> computer. > >> You are one-step removed from the blog in much the same way that you > > are > >> one-step removed from a blog entry when you read blogs through a feed > >> reader. The big difference being that you loose anything *not* in the > >> video file itself such as additional text with links and > >> explanations. > >> That's a big drawback in my book, but if that's how you watch, > > that's how > >> you watch. It's sort of a mix between the blog and the video on- > >> demand > >> system where you get the disconnect from the on-demand system while > >> retaining the potential of the blog's activity (the potential, it's > > not > >> actually there while you watch). > >> > >> What I don't get is why you just don't watch the video in a seperate > >> window on the computer? > >> > > > > The factor of compelling is larger and different on a large monitor or > > screen at a distance. This allows an immersion and presence for the > > media piece not presently available on computer screens. What is > > missing is a synchronization between such devices. > > Compelling? I don't follow Enric. Let me take a stab at it though. > How compelling the video I'm watching is on the TV screen is in some > way proportional to how compelling it is when I watch it on the > screen. The exact relationship is unknown... While I have more of an > ability to ignore or give half my attention to a video on the TV > screen... and in fact the physical space between and around us > creates this "space" for interaction with other than the video... > when the ideas or content on that screen become compelling they have > just the same ability to move me to action as when I'm watching it on > my computer... maybe even more. Put another way that video on the TV > has more context on my TV than it does on my computer screen, because > of just being in the context of a bunch of text and computer > interface I see it within the context of the wider world in which I > live the physical world... this gives me the new and more dynamic > space in which to engage that video... and when it does connect... > within this new context it can connect if not more fully... thank in > different ways. These issues... this ability to compel me to action > offsets the ease of access to a hyperlink. In fact while I may find > many things less compelling while watching them on TV I may connect > with fewer thing in more valuable ways. You bring up several very interesting and important points about the television (or tv screen or movie screen) being in a depth inside an environment. This brings into discussion an element missing in prior discussions about computer<-->tv that (with the iPod) of media being in the world rather than a mostly stationary, close-up (excluding the surroundings) environment in being in front of a computer. In film this goes back to the beginning with competing methods of viewing film individually in penny arcades versus in a group inside cafes and theaters. There is too much other information in this post to go further on this. So I think it should be discussed more in a separate post. > > This synchronization you speak of... it's not 100% necessary... I can > type in a url pretty quick and easy... I can also pause and control > the video... but being able to quickly pull up a window that already > has my mefeedia personal queue loaded... and to jump right to the > post... even go immediately to the blog provides that > synchronization. Ideally... in a freaky futuristic world... I'd be > able to say "stop... more info please" (or hit an info button on a > remote) and the video would stop and show or speak that info to me... > I'd then be able to read or hear that info and make a choice as to > wether to follow that action along some other predefined link or > memory link (i.e. requesting a search for a related thought that > popped into my head) or continue with the video. This completely > independent of the physical constraints of the device where the video > was playing. This info option was demonstrated will in the Paul Verhoeven film, "Starship Troopers" -- http://imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ . >The problem is our communications systems are still a > bit fragmented... there is still a difference between a computer with > web access... a TV... and a phone... but those lines are obviously > beginning to blur now... these devices will become part of a seamless > communications space in the future... I needn't mention VOIP... but I > will also point out that now computer flat-screens are coming with > composite video... and TV flat-screens are coming with standard > computer monitor inputs... the main difference is resolution now... a > 27" TV might sell for $900 and have go 1300 pixels wide... a flat- > screen monitor from dell might have an 1800 pixel resolution and top > out at 24"... and they sell for about $1100. The lines are blurring > quickly between are communications systems... another radical change > is of course the video ipod... taking personal video with you into > the world as simply as we take personal audio... how will personal > video players work out in the real world... I have no idea... but I > know that when the first sony walkman arrive no one had any clue how > cool that would be... nor did they have much to put on it. > > All in all this is about the very interesting impact the ubiquity of > media will have on communications. What's important is that I'm not > saying this method is better... I'm saying this method is new and > interesting and fun... and provides if nothing else... the > opportunity for new insights into how we interact with vlogs... and > possibly some insight into how we'll interact with media in the > future though it is possible to be really really off. We are after > all just peaking through keyholes. The rate of exponential change in technology is speeding up. It becomes less tenable to draw clear boundaries between tv/blogging/etc. as the rate of new and change accelerates. > > P.S. Let's not forget about the whole other side of this... the > cemeras and the input systems... I often do because I admitedly do > not make and post enough (ahem, any) of my own home made videos... > really silly of me actually. :) It's good to do both. Be your own qa ;) > > Peace, > > -Mike > > Michael Meiser > http://mmeiser.com/blog - fun stuff > http://mmeiser.com/backchannel - del.icio.us link blog > http://evilvlog.com - Serious lunacy has a new domain. > http://mefeedia.com > > > > > -- Enric > > -======- > > http://www.cirne.com > > Determine Media > > > >> - Andreas > >> -- > >> <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > > >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > >> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
